Apple certainly doesn't have to worry about losing its claim to having produced the best Super Bowl ad ever.
Oh gawd. That ad was based around a lame, confusing reference to a certain novel — a novel that the makers obviously had not read. It doesn't make sense to anybody who doesn't already think that Apple products are Destined to Save the World. Anybody who thinks this is "best ever" needs to get out more.
A contradiction would be the FBI saying, "We do too need to do this" without giving any reason. If they give a reason, such as, "We've gotten results, but we can't tell you what they are" then that's an argument. It might or might not be a good argument (depending on whether you believe they should be trusted) but a bad argument is still an argument.
Why bother with the wilderness? Check into a motel that takes cash in some town where nobody knows you. As you say, there have to be rules about how much you can isolate yourself.
I'd stay connected, since by far the biggest danger is user errors: you accidentally connecting to the wrong serves, ignoring a cert change alert or something else boneheaded.
User error isn't merely the biggest danger. If you count social engineering exploits and sloppy procedures as "user error" than user error accounts for almost all exploits. Mathematical exploits are few and far between — "breaking the code" is something that pretty much happens only in bad spy movies.
(And yes, I know how Blechley Park "broke" Enigma. Except Enigma was never broken. Sloppy procedures by Axis radio operators made the code less secure than it should have been. As it was, they needed brilliant mathematics, early computers, and a lot of luck to even read a small portion of Enigma traffic.)
But why is connecting to the wrong machine a security breach? Because you're sending your password to somebody that shouldn't have it? Passwords themselves are poor security — nobody can remember all the passwords they need to use, and the usual methods of recording them (like the post-it attached to the monitor) are horribly insecure. If you're paranoid enough to use SSH, you should be using SSH's public key authentication.
But I never quite did understand that strategy, though-- how Java use helps Sun.
They do make a bit of money licensing their own Java implementation and certifying that other implementations are compatible. Probably not enough to justify all the effort they put into creating Java. If all of Sun's ambitious plans for Java had succeeded, it could have been a real profit center. Recall that Sun hoped to persuade everybody to abandon Windows in favor of the JavaStation and other Java-based network computers.
As it turns out, all the different ways Java was going to take over the world mostly didn't happen. A big part of this was poor execution, as when they rushed poorly designed VMs to market early on. But mainly there was the usual groupthink and wishful thinking that made them overestimate Java's chance and underestimate its flaws.
That's not your only solution. If your web server's OS supports the IDE, you're all set. If the server runs Windows, you can access it via Remote Desktop. If it runs Linux, then you just have to point the DISPLAY variable at your local machine.
A project like this, if it took off, could be quite good for expanding the usage of the Java language.
Maybe true. Doesn't matter. When I say "blue sky", I'm referring to the "if" part, not the "could be good" part. Since this project has been around for a couple years without seeming to go anywhere, I think it's safe to say it isn't going to take off.
Which makes it like a lot of other projects that Sun announced with great fanfare but that never go anywhere.
Just because somebody can pick up this project doesn't mean somebody will. Might happen — don't know, don't care.
My point was about Sun's habit of starting ambitious projects that are supposed to revolutionize this or that, but don't go anywhere. As far as I could tell when I worked there, they were mostly about keeping busy people who were no longer useful to Sun (if they ever were) but were too well-connected to be let go. Sun always had a big problem with cronyism.
You spend billions of dollars a year on the shuttle and build the American part of the ISS on that set of constraints and then wonder why it cost so much.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that the whole point of the shuttle program was to bring launch costs down. Easy to overlook, since it ended up being a total money pit. But it didn't have to be that way.
If memory serves, this is how it went wrong: NASA couldn't get the startup budget that was deemed the minimum necessary to develop the thing. They decided to build it anyway, and hope that once the program was started, Congress would be afraid to kill it.
That indeed was what happened, but the result was a disaster. Once the el cheapo design got locked in (why does Seattle DOS come to mind?), the only way to move the program forward was to kludge in fix after fix. The result was the most complicated vehicle in the history of transportation. (NASA's clueless PR flacks actually boast about this!) Complexity like that can only result in cost overruns and repeated malfunctions — how many launches have been delayed by technical problems?
The obvious thing to do is start from scratch, and this time fund the program properly, so you don't have to fix it later. And while you're at it, you might as well build something that can achieve a proper orbit. Unfortunately, that's even more a political non-starter in 2010 than it was in 1970.
Some of the malware I've encountered lately (I've got one system unusable until I get around to reinstalling the OS) is very sophisticated indeed. I would admire the designers, if I didn't so badly want them dead.
There's inspiration, and then there's "quoting", which is what Lucas does. Watterson certainly owes something to older cartoonists, but the man is original. I can't think of any other comic strip where you so often have no idea what's really happening and what's just a figment of the heroes imagination. (And often, both premises are contradicted in a single strip!) George Lucas never had that kind of imagination, and even if he did, he wouldn't have the balls to actually put that kind of story in his movies.
Lucas's one accomplishment is revive the pre-television B movie, the kind with lots of action and not a lot of logic. That's a formula for getting folks into the theater, but it's still just a formula.
There's a lot of people who don't see the similarity. But others do. And there are a huge number of "quotes" like that in the movie. A film buff could tell you more, and would probably even claim that Lucas is a genius for recycling material that way.
Please. Not covering all the territory you think it should cover doesn't make it a "fluff piece". It's too short, and doesn't cover a lot of ground, but that's obviously Watterson protecting his privacy. I thought the comments about why he shut down the strip when it was still popular were very interesting. I'd like to know more about a guy who had the balls to walk away from a profitable enterprise while it was still churning out money, but Watterson has no obligation to tell us.
being a newly minted patent attorney, appreciated all the great b.s. that his dad in the strip would just make up.
My favorite: Calvin asking why old photos are black and white, and Dad explaining that color itself is a recent invention! There's a logical flaw in this explanation, which Calvin quickly spots.
I'm not sure "being grounded" is the right term. Frankly, I've never thought the guy was that good on his own. Making a movie is usually a big collective process, and that often allows the director to claim credit for things that really came out of the heads of other people. Film critics have complicated theories that justify this BS, but I've never bought it.
So back when George Lucas was just another newbie director, he was forced to accept all kinds of creative input. And he was also able to get away with stealing scenes from famous movies. But when he became the Great Creative Genius, he couldn't do that, and had to fall back on his own creativity. Which, it turns out, he never had.
IE6 was the worse, but pretty much all browsers screw(ed) up pretty badly at one point or another.
True. Back when Netscape still dominated the browser market, they took a lot of flack for their private extensions to HTML.
And HTML/CSS leaves a lot of the default implementations to the browser developers, so while there are many "implicit" agreements between Firefox, Safari, and even IE, they're not part of the standards.
The vagueness is by design. You can't specify exactly what a given element will do, because there are all kinds of factors you don't know anything about: resolution, display size, color depth, etc. Unfortunately, most web designers still don't get this. Instead of learning the official description of an object, they just look at the way it's rendered on their particular setup and say, "Oh, that's what it's supposed to do."
Slashdot Mirror
Jeez, I didn't expect to get modded up. Is everybody feeling OK?
Oh gawd. That ad was based around a lame, confusing reference to a certain novel — a novel that the makers obviously had not read. It doesn't make sense to anybody who doesn't already think that Apple products are Destined to Save the World. Anybody who thinks this is "best ever" needs to get out more.
Maybe it's time to change my sig.
A contradiction would be the FBI saying, "We do too need to do this" without giving any reason. If they give a reason, such as, "We've gotten results, but we can't tell you what they are" then that's an argument. It might or might not be a good argument (depending on whether you believe they should be trusted) but a bad argument is still an argument.
Why bother with the wilderness? Check into a motel that takes cash in some town where nobody knows you. As you say, there have to be rules about how much you can isolate yourself.
OK, I stand corrected. User error or implementation error.
User error isn't merely the biggest danger. If you count social engineering exploits and sloppy procedures as "user error" than user error accounts for almost all exploits. Mathematical exploits are few and far between — "breaking the code" is something that pretty much happens only in bad spy movies.
(And yes, I know how Blechley Park "broke" Enigma. Except Enigma was never broken. Sloppy procedures by Axis radio operators made the code less secure than it should have been. As it was, they needed brilliant mathematics, early computers, and a lot of luck to even read a small portion of Enigma traffic.)
But why is connecting to the wrong machine a security breach? Because you're sending your password to somebody that shouldn't have it? Passwords themselves are poor security — nobody can remember all the passwords they need to use, and the usual methods of recording them (like the post-it attached to the monitor) are horribly insecure. If you're paranoid enough to use SSH, you should be using SSH's public key authentication.
The problem is finding a network administrator who's smarter than a slime mold.
They do make a bit of money licensing their own Java implementation and certifying that other implementations are compatible. Probably not enough to justify all the effort they put into creating Java. If all of Sun's ambitious plans for Java had succeeded, it could have been a real profit center. Recall that Sun hoped to persuade everybody to abandon Windows in favor of the JavaStation and other Java-based network computers.
As it turns out, all the different ways Java was going to take over the world mostly didn't happen. A big part of this was poor execution, as when they rushed poorly designed VMs to market early on. But mainly there was the usual groupthink and wishful thinking that made them overestimate Java's chance and underestimate its flaws.
That's not your only solution. If your web server's OS supports the IDE, you're all set. If the server runs Windows, you can access it via Remote Desktop. If it runs Linux, then you just have to point the DISPLAY variable at your local machine.
A project like this, if it took off, could be quite good for expanding the usage of the Java language.
Maybe true. Doesn't matter. When I say "blue sky", I'm referring to the "if" part, not the "could be good" part. Since this project has been around for a couple years without seeming to go anywhere, I think it's safe to say it isn't going to take off.
Which makes it like a lot of other projects that Sun announced with great fanfare but that never go anywhere.
Just because somebody can pick up this project doesn't mean somebody will. Might happen — don't know, don't care.
My point was about Sun's habit of starting ambitious projects that are supposed to revolutionize this or that, but don't go anywhere. As far as I could tell when I worked there, they were mostly about keeping busy people who were no longer useful to Sun (if they ever were) but were too well-connected to be let go. Sun always had a big problem with cronyism.
...blue sky projects that will disappear now that Sun is under rational management.
You spend billions of dollars a year on the shuttle and build the American part of the ISS on that set of constraints and then wonder why it cost so much.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that the whole point of the shuttle program was to bring launch costs down. Easy to overlook, since it ended up being a total money pit. But it didn't have to be that way.
If memory serves, this is how it went wrong: NASA couldn't get the startup budget that was deemed the minimum necessary to develop the thing. They decided to build it anyway, and hope that once the program was started, Congress would be afraid to kill it.
That indeed was what happened, but the result was a disaster. Once the el cheapo design got locked in (why does Seattle DOS come to mind?), the only way to move the program forward was to kludge in fix after fix. The result was the most complicated vehicle in the history of transportation. (NASA's clueless PR flacks actually boast about this!) Complexity like that can only result in cost overruns and repeated malfunctions — how many launches have been delayed by technical problems?
The obvious thing to do is start from scratch, and this time fund the program properly, so you don't have to fix it later. And while you're at it, you might as well build something that can achieve a proper orbit. Unfortunately, that's even more a political non-starter in 2010 than it was in 1970.
Nobody needs that much money. Nobody needs sex either. But it's rare to find somebody who will turn their back on either.
I don't much care how he does it. All that matters to me is that the material is still worth following, and the rest of the comic page isn't.
I often wondered what the deal was with his hair. Thanks for making the connection for me...
(Connection, get it?)
Some of the malware I've encountered lately (I've got one system unusable until I get around to reinstalling the OS) is very sophisticated indeed. I would admire the designers, if I didn't so badly want them dead.
Does anybody else miss script kiddies?
Obfuscation isn't good security. But, as any politician will tell you, it's excellent defense.
There's inspiration, and then there's "quoting", which is what Lucas does. Watterson certainly owes something to older cartoonists, but the man is original. I can't think of any other comic strip where you so often have no idea what's really happening and what's just a figment of the heroes imagination. (And often, both premises are contradicted in a single strip!) George Lucas never had that kind of imagination, and even if he did, he wouldn't have the balls to actually put that kind of story in his movies.
Lucas's one accomplishment is revive the pre-television B movie, the kind with lots of action and not a lot of logic. That's a formula for getting folks into the theater, but it's still just a formula.
There's a lot of people who don't see the similarity. But others do. And there are a huge number of "quotes" like that in the movie. A film buff could tell you more, and would probably even claim that Lucas is a genius for recycling material that way.
Please. Not covering all the territory you think it should cover doesn't make it a "fluff piece". It's too short, and doesn't cover a lot of ground, but that's obviously Watterson protecting his privacy. I thought the comments about why he shut down the strip when it was still popular were very interesting. I'd like to know more about a guy who had the balls to walk away from a profitable enterprise while it was still churning out money, but Watterson has no obligation to tell us.
being a newly minted patent attorney, appreciated all the great b.s. that his dad in the strip would just make up.
My favorite: Calvin asking why old photos are black and white, and Dad explaining that color itself is a recent invention! There's a logical flaw in this explanation, which Calvin quickly spots.
I'm not sure "being grounded" is the right term. Frankly, I've never thought the guy was that good on his own. Making a movie is usually a big collective process, and that often allows the director to claim credit for things that really came out of the heads of other people. Film critics have complicated theories that justify this BS, but I've never bought it.
So back when George Lucas was just another newbie director, he was forced to accept all kinds of creative input. And he was also able to get away with stealing scenes from famous movies. But when he became the Great Creative Genius, he couldn't do that, and had to fall back on his own creativity. Which, it turns out, he never had.
Ehh, don't even mention "Garfield" in my presence. Though there's less to regret there, since the strip always was a little labored.
Recently, Get Fuzzy and Monty have started to run out of material. (And I only just discovered them!) Now I'm down to Non Sequitur.
IE6 was the worse, but pretty much all browsers screw(ed) up pretty badly at one point or another.
True. Back when Netscape still dominated the browser market, they took a lot of flack for their private extensions to HTML.
And HTML/CSS leaves a lot of the default implementations to the browser developers, so while there are many "implicit" agreements between Firefox, Safari, and even IE, they're not part of the standards.
The vagueness is by design. You can't specify exactly what a given element will do, because there are all kinds of factors you don't know anything about: resolution, display size, color depth, etc. Unfortunately, most web designers still don't get this. Instead of learning the official description of an object, they just look at the way it's rendered on their particular setup and say, "Oh, that's what it's supposed to do."